At Issue - Separatist cracks at first ministers meeting

Episode Date: January 30, 2026

The prime minister and premiers grapple with growing separatist sentiment while trying to pull together for U.S. trade talks. Poilievre makes his case to keep his job after a string of defeats. And Carney swings back at U.S. criticism of his Davos speech. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always overdelivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairro.ca.

This is a CBC podcast. Hi there, I'm Rosemary Barton this week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, January 29th. I can tell you, Quebec is stronger in Canada and Canada is stronger with the Quebec. I love Quebecers. To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking out Canada, there's an old-fashioned word for that. And that word is treason. I'm not going to demonize or marginalize a million. of my fellow citizens when they've got legitimate grievances. What we need to do is we need to give

Albertan's hope. I expect the U.S. administration to respect Canadian sovereignty. So how are political leaders responding to these questions around separatism and how do some of these movements challenge Canadian unity? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down tonight. Chantal LeBair, Andrew Coyne, Elthia Raj. So this was supposed to be a first minister's meeting, I think, where they got updates on talks with the United States and some of the travels, the Prime Minister, been doing and all those things happened, but the vast majority of the questions ended up being about national unity and some of these threats. What did you make of the response from the premiers and the prime minister today, Chantelle? Well, I'll start off by saying it wasn't the

theme of the meeting and most of the questions. Well, the questions were media driven. So if you're asked and you're the premier of any province, you basically have to answer. In the case of of Quebec, there's a, you know, card before horse sense to this in the sense that there will be a provincial election in Quebec in October. True. I don't know who the leaders will be for two of the three main parties. But the assumption that there will be a referendum is the assumption that the PQ will win, and that's not an assumption despite the polls that anybody in this province has.

So to kind of say do not vote for that party. Didn't work well, by the way, for Francois Legault, when he tried to convince Quebecers not to vote liberal and doesn't work well when others say, you know, don't vote for that party. Then there is the Alberta things. I should say because I covered a previous referendum that the U.S. back then did have

conversations with people from the Parts-Khebecois and the Sovereignty movement to inform their analysis of what was happening. I will also say that the context is very different this time. There has never been any sympathy on the part of Quebec sovereignists for becoming parts of the U.S. And there has never been interest on the part of an administration in the U.S. for annexing part of Canada. So we're somewhere else completely.

It speaks to Andrew this, and Chautel's right. The questions were obviously from the media. It wasn't that they sat around talking about this all day. But it does speak to the pressures that they're all under, both from the United States and from inside Canada. Yes. We have an administration of the United States in the last few days. It's been talking about not just slapping 100% tariffs on us, but sending aircraft into our airspace and giving aid and comfort to a separatist. project in Alberta. That is outrageous. You know, the premier British Columbia set the cat amongst the pigeons by calling the behavior of these right-wing loons who went down there to meet with them treasonous. I think treason has a very specific definition that I don't think this meets, but it's certainly clear that they would like to break up the country and therefore cause us material harm. And the novelty here is that they now seem to be conspiring with an erstwhile ally. So it's outrageous behavior on the part of the Trump administration.

It, I think, deserves a much stronger rebuke than it got of the prime minister simply saying he expects them to respect our sovereignty. It's clear that they don't respect our sovereignty, and this is simply one aspect of it. That's what, I mean, we have the novelty that we now have not one but two secessionist projects in the country. Again, as Chantal is right to say, both of them of uncertain prospects, but to have both of them and to have at least one of them having the tacit or. or overt support of the President of the United States takes us into absolutely new territory. Althea, how would you characterize what we're seeing? I agree with Andrew on the prime minister's response.

I think he can qualify it as weak sauce. I mean, he just went to Davos and basically said that the Americans were impeding on her sovereignty and then turns around and says he expects the Americans to respect her sovereignty. It didn't make a lot of sense. I was a little surprised by Pyramus Smith's comments, not that I don't think anybody was asking her to demonize Albertans who have, who support the separation movement, or who share some of the grievances that are expressed by those who support sovereignty. But the way she answered the question kind of called into question the grievances vis-a-vis Canada,

whether Canada deserves to exist as it is. And, you know, I think a lot of politicians in the province that I'm in right now have manipulated, often fueled separatist sentiment based on erroneous facts. And, you know, a lot of people do have legitimate grievances. They want to see equalization, for example, modified so that Quebec hydro is included in the formula. But also a lot of people completely misunderstand how equalization work. upset about something that just actually is not true. On the U.S. side of things, it is very unusual to now see an American administration basically kind of say, well, we share a lot in common with

Alberta, this province, and they would be welcome to be a 51st state and kind of see to fuel that movement in the past, and Jantanth had referred to it. You know, Ottawa had spoken to the United States, has spoken to France, about, you know, recognition of a potential, the result of a potential yes vote in Quebec. That is not the same thing at all. And I do think, though, that Andrew is correct, that the wider frame, the Kuzman negotiations are trying to destabilize politics in this country is also what the Americans are after. And so we're kind of playing in their hand by playing in this frame. And I will say just for the Premier of Alberta, she sort of blamed Justin Trudeau for the state of where the province is with the issue of separate

I'm not saying that's accurate, but that's where she put the onus or the blame. But Chantelle, on Althea's point about this sort of playing into the Americans, the administration's hands when it comes to destabilizing things, what do you do then? Well, two things. In the case of Quebec, the more the Americans are interested in breaking up the country, the less good it is for the sovereignty movement. There is not here. a constituency for MAGA that is behind the sovereignty movement. In the case of Alberta, I believe that's also the same. I believe the vast majority of Albertans,

including those that would like to vote yes in a referendum. And by the way, the prospect of one in Alberta is much closer than in Quebec. The premier, whatever she may say, has facilitated this every step of the way and has promised that if the petition to ask for one meets the threshold in May, she will hold one in 2026. But in the case of Alberta, I believe the vast majority of Albertans, but those who would like to use this to send a message to Ottawa will shy away from voting, yes, because of the notion that there is a constituency behind that movement that really is interested

in becoming an American state. Last 30 seconds to you, Andrew. Well, just to reinforce the point about everything Donald Trump touches, he has this a reverse Midas touch, the right wing in Europe is running away from as fast as they can, certainly post-Greenland, because they can see that he's toxic to their choices. If you look at public opinion in the United States,

there's a big surge now in support for free trade, support for immigration, all because Trump has shown people what the alternative looks like. And if we're lucky, we may have the same impact here, that the prospect of being associated with Trump in any way is so poisonous to the chances of secessionists in either Alberta or Quebec that it may redound to Canada's favor. Okay, got to leave this there.

Althea, you'll start us off on the next round because you're in Calgary, and we're going to talk about the Conservative Party Convention and Pierre Paulyev's leadership with you. So will the conservative leader get the support he needs from Party faithful? what will be his message to the party and the country. That's next. We don't need more signing ceremonies, more summits, more laws, more agencies, more corporate buzzwords,

or more abracadabra. What we need from this prime minister is one thing. Get out of the way. So will Pierre Paulyev get the support he needs tomorrow? What does he need to say to supporters? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, Elthia. Althea, you're already in Calgary.

what are you going to be watching for tomorrow night? The leader of the official offices in speech. And of course, the big drama of the weekend is what is the number that Pierre Pueleev gets. So the speech is before the vote. And so the speech will be really directed at that room. Now, to be clear, most of the people who were selected as delegates, so every writing association was allowed to send 10 delegates, basically had to pledge their support to peer Pueleev to get here.

That doesn't mean that the entire room here is supportive of Pierre Puelev. I have spoken to people who are not. But it would be quite surprising if Pierre Paulyev does not meet the threshold that he won the conservative leadership by in 2022, which is 70, just under 71%. The goal is to have him win by above 85%. That Stephen Harper got 84% in 2005, Mark Carney and the liberal leadership. ship win, roughly 87%. They want to come out of this completely united. The buzz in the room, they all think there's going to be a spring election.

They believe that they are weaker when they are divided. They're not wrong about that. And that the liberals want to see them divided. They're also not wrong about that. I think the framing, you know, some of the hunger in the room is about we lost last time. how do we make sure that we win this time? So a lot of people will be looking for that in pure polio of speech. From what I understand of the speech, I don't know that they will find it there.

But the party is really trying to hammer this generational divide that Mark Carney is focused with people who, you know, have already quite large RSPs and are worried about the future, but we should really be worried about children to make sure that they have the same opportunities that the boomers have and young people. And so I think that that is a divide that we're going to be worried that. we're going to see more and more. Not just this convention, but in the House of Commons is the weeks going to be watching for. Obviously, the number, but beyond that. Well, they're in a bit of a predicament. The conservatives have a very high floor and a very low ceiling on their support. It's hard for

them to get less than 35% of the vote. It's hard for them to get more than 40. Pierre Pallier was not only responsible for that, but he's part of it. He very much appeals to conservatives in the base. He very much turns off people outside the base. The problem they've got is, one, it's not clear there's anybody better waiting in the wings that they could reach for if Blyever were decommissioned. And secondly, it's not at all clear that even if you got a better leader, that you could persuade a lot of those votes that went back to the liberals after the, after Justin Trudeau's departure, to look at the conservatives again. Because right now, those voters, those swing voters between the conservatives and the liberals seem pretty happy with Mark Carney. So I think they will opt as probably

they should to stick with the devil they know, especially if they've got an election coming. I mean, who knows if there's an election coming? I think that that is also helpful for conservatives to believe, right, as they head into this vote and to spread. But Chantelle, give me your read on what we might see. I think it's not prudent to be, and I've seen those numbers. So it's not just It's not prudent to start talking about 80% plus. Why? Because if you get it, you want it to look like you did really well. And if you don't get it and you get 78, people are going to say, well, you know, he wanted 85%.

Which I have to say sounds high. A number of people who are making their way to the convention did pledge allegiance to Piaopoulognev to get to the convention. but that doesn't mean that they're going to vote for him. So that's one thing. The other thing is I think that the conservatives desperately need the NDP to come back if they're going to have a shot under any leader. And that poll, the liegee poll that came out this week,

was devastating on that score. Because what did it show? It showed that the liberals were in majority territory, not because the conservatives were losing at their floor. They're not losing their base, but because the NDP and the Blyck were losing support. And unless the NDP, and I'm not sure looking at the leadership race, that that's going to happen.

As long as people are minded on deciding who's going to be prime minister and not who will have influence on the prime minister, I think the conservatives, and there are any leader will have a problem. Yeah, two things. Oh, sorry, Andrew and then Althea. Yeah, go ahead, Andrew. Two things will scare NDP voters, are scaring NDP voters into the liberal camp.

One is Donald Trump. As long as Trump is hovering on the horizon, that's going to be a factor and a problem for the Conservatives. The other, until now at least, has been, Pierre-Polle, yeah, partly because people don't think he can stand up to Trump enough, partly because it's just in his own right. He, if he's going to stay on his later,

if he's going to resolve that contradiction, has to present a different face than he has in the past. He has to be less scary to left of center voters and he has to be more willing to show his defiance and opposition to Donald Trump. I think we've been starting to see, if I can say, a slightly more statesman like Pierre Paulyev in the last couple of weeks, maybe assuming he gets this leadership monkey off his back, maybe we'll start to see him looking a bit more like a prime minister. I mean, and the Donald Trump factor for him is real here too, Elthia because that's what's attracting so many people to Mark Carney to the Prime Minister.

So many conservatives actually like Mark Carney. And maybe they didn't vote for him last election, but they are openly saying that they would vote for him if there was an election now because they think he's the right man to face off against Donald Trump. I agree with everything that Andrew said. The problem with Pierre Puellev is he pulls so far below his actual party. And the longer that he is there and that progressives fear him, the more we have a two-party system. And, you know, the conservatives are still, like, we are in what we normally would consider majority territory with both of these parties. But the other parties are nowhere to be found, basically. So it's hard to see that changing anytime soon. That being said,

the prime minister will have to make a bunch of decisions. He has made a lot of announcements, and he has been pleasing everybody. And one thing that was surprising this morning was seeing how everybody's getting along and is happy. And it seems like the Federation is like, oh, it's an example of things working. But the MOU with Alberta will be on April 1st.

And frankly, the prime minister has said things to both camps, that it's never going to happen and that it's going to happen. So there will be, the longer Mark Carney is in power, a record of people being disappointed. And as long as Pierre Pueleev can try to survive that train because frankly right now he benefits from a lot of people who want his job sitting on sideline thinking he can be the Thomas Mulcair he can be the prosecutor and the leader of the official opposition and by the time people are tired with Mark Carney there will be a new

leadership race and I can run again or I can run for the first time I've got to leave it there take a short break here but when we come back we'll talk about the upcoming Kusma review and the war of words this past week between Canada and the U.S. That's next. I would not pick a fight being going into the USMCA to score some cheap political points. Either you are working for your own political career or you're working for the Canadian people. I find one of the most effective ways to negotiate is not to negotiate in public, so we'll wait until we have the broader discussions with the United States as part of a review, not a renegotiation, but a review of Kuzma.

So what does this latest tension between Canada and the U.S. mean for Kusma? What position does it put Canada in? Let's bring everyone back. Chantilly Bear, Andrew Coyne, Othia Raj. Andrew, why don't you start us off on this one? This was not the first set of comments that Scott Bessent made this week about the prime minister. I'm not sure what the tactic is here. I guess it's maybe to scare Canada. I'm not sure. What do you make of the back and forth there? Well, they only have one gear, don't they? It's the sort of, you know, Darth Vader resistance is futile, just kind of threatening and bullying. And look, I don't think much has changed there. There's certainly been, showing, they, the Americans have been showing much more of their intent and designs for this country in the last week or 10 days. And we should be mindful of that.

We should not be so mindful of that that we tremor in our boots and say yes or no sir and give in to whatever their demands. And one thing we should, I think, be anticipating in this negotiation is they're going to bring all kinds of extravagant demands that don't have a whole lot to do with tariffs or trade or even the economy. So unless we just say, well, we have to have this trade agreement come what may, we therefore have no choice but to give into their demands. We can't possibly take that position. And the only way that position is, the other position is credible is if we're prepared to walk away from the table. I must say I was struck today by the public comments of John Manley, the former liberal finance minister, a business liberal if there ever was one, I think somebody with a lot of credibility in the business community, who said, look, you know, we were a country and a successful one, for the free trade agreement, will be a successful country after it if that's what it takes. So try to get an agreement, yes, but not in any terms.

And the only way you can make that stick is to make absolutely clear that you're prepared to walk away from the table if you have to. Chantal? Was it a week ago that we were talking about 100% tariffs on all Canadian products? And now it's something else. I totally agree with Andrew. At some point, all this demonstrates is maybe the futility of thinking that this is a serious negotiation.

I also notice the change or the language of the prime minister from renegotiation to a review because there are mechanism that I don't expect the U.S. to respect to tell you the truth. The South Korea made a deal. deal with the U.S. administration. Until this week, when the U.S. administration decided it wasn't

adopting that deal fast enough in its legislature. So now new tariffs on South Korea. So at some point, you start to think it's impossible to have a conversation with people who are so fickle. I don't read that much into the review versus renegotiations. The Americans under Joe Biden and we're talking about renegotiations and the Canadians, you know, a year and change ago, we're also trying to stress the fact that they view it as only a review to limit the scope. I mean, you could potentially say, and I don't know this to be true, that maybe Ottawa is willing to say, if it's not just a review, if it's a full-blown thing, then, you know, we're pulling the plug. But I don't think we're there yet.

On the American response, I think they're just like a wounded bear. I don't think they expected the Davos speech to get the kind of traction in the United States that it did. And their defense is an offense. And so they're, you know, what Besson said actually helps Mark Carney in Canada. It doesn't hurt him. So I don't think it's necessarily the best play, if anything, like rally everyone around the prime minister and give him an even stronger mandate vis-a-vis the United States. I don't mean electorally, but I mean just in terms of everybody. coming together and saying we need to fight this together. So I think it's a bit of a misread of

the Canadian ethos at the moment. Thank you all. That is at issue for this week. What do you think about all this talk of separatism in Canada? Do you have any questions about the upcoming Kusma review? Let us know. Send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton, live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will be back here in your feeds next week. Thanks a lot for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.